Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies
http://jlo.sagepub.com/
The Evolution of the Concept of the 'Executive' from the 20th Century Manager to the 21st Century Global
Leader
Joyce Thompson Heames and Michael Harvey
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 2006 13: 29
DOI: 10.1177/10717919070130020301
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jlo.sagepub.com/content/13/2/29
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Midwest Academy of Management
Additional services and information for Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 2006
What is This?
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at COLUMBIA UNIV on February 9, 2012
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 2006, Vol. 13, No. 2
The Evolution of the Concept of the ‘Executive’
from the 20th Century Manager to the 21st
Century Global Leader
Joyce Thompson Heames - West Virginia University
Michael Harvey - University of Mississippi
The purpose of this paper is to take an in-depth
look at the profiles of executive skills and
competencies drawn across the expanse of
seventy-five years framed in the backdrop of
management philosophy changes. In the early
1900’s, Chester Barnard outlined the
competencies he felt the executive of the future
At the
would need in the 20th Century.
st
beginning of the 21 Century, Morgan McCall
and George Hollenbeck interviewed over 100
expatriates and reported a list of needed
competencies for the global executive of the 21st
Century. This paper chronicles the changes in
the management arena over that 70 plus year
period of time to frame the backdrop of these
two executive skill profiles. The journey is
interesting and the outcome is surprising at
times. Just as organizations are a product of
their past, so to is the executive of today. He/she
is an anthology of all the things that an
executive needed in early 1900’s, with a couple
dynamic dimensions thrown in to maintain their
sustainable competitive advantage in the new
millennium global marketplace. Key Words:
leadership, executive development, global
management, 20th Century management
training/development, 21st Century global
managers, differences between traditional
managers and global leaders
“Systematic development of global
leaders requires an even stronger, more focused
commitment than does a domestic effort. You
have to know what you are doing, why you are
doing it, and what you want to get out of it.
Without the clarity of commitment, the
complexity of the global environment will
swamp the effort.” (McCall & Hollenbeck,
2002, p. 8)
One of the fundamental questions asked
by scholars and business leaders today is, “How
can a company prepare to effectively compete in
the
hypercompetitive,
complex,
global
environment of the 21st Century?” One of the
central precepts in the management literature is
the necessity to have a well developed,
experienced management team at the helm, or in
other words, experienced, well prepared
executives (Porter, Lorsch, & Nohria, 2004).
However, what constitutes an executive with the
“right stuff” is defined in a variety of ways
(McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002).
There is
reasonable agreement that much of what
tomorrow’s executives need to know can be
learned yet, how they gain that knowledge is
another matter and is not a simple ‘cookie
cutter’ formula. Each person has individual
talents and strengths that have to be
amalgamated into finely tuned organizational
and market skills set (Kotter, 2001).
It is necessary to continuously assess the
transformation from a good executive to a great
executive, as well as how to develop leaders that
are able to insure that organizations survive in
today’s multi-faceted multicultural global
marketplace. To gain insight into what it takes
to be ‘great’ involves comparing past strategies
for developing executives with the espoused
formula for success today. In 1938 Chester
Barnard put forth his thoughts on the traits and
skills of the executive in a ‘cooperative system’
in order to be successful (Wren, 1994).
Recently, after completing an empirical
qualitative worldwide study, McCall and
Hollenbeck (2002) described their vision of the
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at COLUMBIA UNIV on February 9, 2012
30 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies
uintessential ‘global executive’ and the
necessary skills needed to retain a competitive
edge in today’s complex global business world.
The purpose of this paper is twofold.
The first objective is to provide a brief historical
review and draw a parallel of some of the more
prominent changes in the management
environment across the last 70 years. As we
enter the 21st Century, it would seem to be an
appropriate time to examine the evolution of
desirable characteristics of managers compared
to the past. Barnard’s seminal work in the 1930s
provides the backdrop for the historic
representation of what was thought to be the
necessary qualities of ‘successful’ managers.
Secondly, we develop a comparative analysis of
Barnard’s ‘successful manager’ of the early 20th
Century with that of McCall and Hollenbeck’s
(2002) ‘global executive’ of the 21st Century.
Their empirical research can serve as the
foundation of what is thought to be needed for
success in the global marketplace of the 21st
Century and therefore, be used to foreshadow
what qualities are necessary to succeed in the
future. It is important to continue to look at
current phenomena through the lens of the past
(Wren, 1994); thus the use of the comparison of
the two perspectives should be helpful in linking
the 70 years of change and development in the
management conceptualized by Barnard with the
expectations developed by McCall and
Hollenbeck about developing executives to meet
the challenges in managing in the global
marketplace.
Early Conceptualization of
Management & Management
Development
Discussion about what makes a good
manager/executive/leader and how to develop
such archetypes of commandership has been an
ongoing debate for millenniums. As early as
400 BC, Socrates noted that management skills
were transferable from one setting to another; it
was just a matter of understanding the key areas
of needs by a given group (Watson, 1869). In
the year 1513, Machiavelli penned the first ‘how
to’ book for rulers (executives) and listed his
‘must knows’ for the aspiring ruler (Swain,
2002). Even though the content was technical
Heames & Harvey
and procedural in nature, in 1836 James
Montgomery wrote what is considered by some
as the first text book on management (Wren,
1994). In 1908, Henri Fayol responded to a call
for a theory of management by developing his
now universal ‘principles of management’ that
allowed for what was thought to be an art
(management) to be studied as a discipline in the
classroom (Rodriques, 2001).
A glance back through the pages of
management history illustrates that many
management gurus of the early 20th Century had
their beliefs about what constituted the qualities
of a top notch manager. Each writer supported
the viewpoint that management as a philosophy
and practice, which helped to provide a
backdrop of executive education throughout the
decades. Perhaps ahead of her time, Mary
Parker Follet believed in the communities of
creative practice and suggested that employees
be considered an intrinsic part of the
organization that allowed it to be more
productive (Wren, 1994). Nobel prizewinner
Herbert Simon held strong beliefs about the
decision-making process of executives and firms
in general as he espoused his ideas about
“bounded rationality” (1945). Simon believed
that no one person, including the executive,
could make the complicated decisions of
running an organization in isolation. He defined
the organization as “the pattern of
communications and relations among a group of
human beings, including the processes for
making and implement decisions”, (Simon,
1945, p. 19). And, not to be forgotten; Ralph C.
Davis (1951) wrote “Management is defined as
the function of executive leadership” (p. 12).
Fayol, Follet, Simon, Davis, and many
others made important contributions to our
understanding of management skills and
competencies. But, it is the belief of many that
one name prominently emerges from the early
part of the 20th Century as having a significant
impact on shaping the business landscape of his
era and defining the roles that executives play in
creating viable thriving organizations. Chester
Barnard (1886-1961), as a great scholar, a
notable successful businessman, and a
consultant, through his imagery of the chief
executive of the 1930’s set the foundation for
many to view the development of a world class
leader. Barnard attended Harvard Business
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at COLUMBIA UNIV on February 9, 2012
Evolution of the Concept of the Executive
School where he studied economics, but through
out his life he earned seven honorary doctorates
for his contribution to the understanding of
organizations (Wren, 1994).
During his
presidency of New Jersey Bell, he was noted for
his ‘unbounded’ enthusiasm and concern for his
employees. As a consultant, Barnard assisted
such organizations as the Atomic Energy
Commission, the New Jersey Reformatory, and
the United Service Organization, just to mention
a few (Wren, 1994). Barnard was known for his
belief that the executive “carried out his
functions in a cooperative and democratic
manner rather than in a unilateral autocratic
way” (Gehani, 2002).
Having acknowledged the contributions
of a few of the pioneers of management thought,
it is useful to assess the picture as it is presented
today. A review of the recent literature on
developing executives revealed many prominent
names, too many to capture in this brief note.
Individuals who will no doubt go down in the
history books as having left interesting and
monumental footprints in the sands of
management development include: Peter
Drucker, Michael Porter, and Victor Vroom, just
to name a few. Drucker, the author of 30 books,
touted as being a candidate for being one of the
most influential observers in modern business
history was an advocate of giving employees
responsibility and not empowerment (Galagan,
1998). Porter (1980) outlined the ‘Five Factor
Analysis’ that gave a clearer picture of the
forces that impact profitability in an industry.
Vroom promoted participative management and
matching decision processes to the nature of the
problem (Vroom, 2003).
Also, at the start of the 21st Century, a
number of management experts published
articles that specified the skills and
competencies needed by senior executives in the
future (see Aupperle & Dunphy, 2001;
McKinsey, 2004; Porter, Lorsch & Nohria,
2004).
However, McCall and Hollenbeck
completed an extensive, qualitative, multicountry study in 2002 that generated an allinclusive list of the competencies of the global
executive. Their list was chosen for our basis of
the discussion of the 21st Century executive,
because of the comprehensiveness of their
Volume 13, Number 2, 2006 31
methodology, the amount of data collected for
the study, and the attention given to the holistic
global executive.
Managerial and Societal Transitions
across the 20th Century
Perhaps a constructive first step would
be to examine changes in society in general, and
the business world specifically, to better
understand how and why current conceptions of
management might different from those of the
early scholars.
For clarity and to draw
distinctions between various stages in the
development of management thought, we have
divided the 20th Century into five basic eras,
between which paradigm shifts occurred in both
the business arena and more specifically in the
conventional wisdom among management
scholars as to what constituted the practice of
management and what managers needed to be
successful: 1.) Era I, 1900-1945; 2.) Era II, 1945
– 1970; 3.) Era III, 1971 – 1991; 4.) Era IV,
1991 – 2001; 5.) Era V, 2001+. Harvey and
Buckley (2002) synthesized many of the
changes in the economy and management
philosophy very effectively over the 70 plus
years. Table 1 outlines the major tenets of their
piece in a way that parallels the 20th and 21st
Centuries.
Our objective is to tie their
observations of changes to these specific eras as
they emerged as an impetus of change in the
management arena.
Era I: 1900-1945
In the early part of the last century,
the United States experienced a major
transition from a basic agrarian economy to
an industrialized society.
Technology
focused on the mechanization and the
production of goods, the business and
economic sectors became contributors to
critical societal issues (i.e., employee rights,
child labor, health/safety in the workplace,
taxation of corporate entities and the role of
corporation in a society), and improvements
in communications and transportation
broadened external perspectives from local
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at COLUMBIA UNIV on February 9, 2012
32 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies
Heames & Harvey
Table 1
Management Environment Transitions from the 20th Century to the 21st Century
20th Century
1. High percentage of manufacturing industries
2. Emphasis on functional expertise
3. Domestic market
4. Legitimate authority in hierarchical
organizational structure
5. Clearly defined operating procedures
6. Well-defined industry boundaries
7. Fairly constant market
8. Bricks & mortar
9. Communication slow & unreliable
10. Technology growth emerging
11. Many employees with similar
responsibilities & skills
(Harvey & Buckley, 2002)
to national and indeed, international
concerns. Making things with machines
became known by a large segment of the
society, as consumers demanded goods in a
quicker time frame. How to make money by
borrowing to maintain and grow businesses was
discovered, creating capital markets. America
discovered that unregulated markets could lead
to monopolies and unfair business practices, and
also fought two World Wars.
Business
organizations grew in wealth and size,
management and ownership separated, and
working for a wage became the norm in the
United States.
Unrestrained competition led to
monopolies, unfair business, poor labor
practices, and massive debt accumulated by
organizations. As a result, society demanded
reforms and the resulting legislation increased
the constraints on business practices. And the
theories of economics taught managers
important lessons in the Great Depression of the
1930s. New Deal programs formed by the
government began to restore the faith in the
power of government to help individuals as
Social Security and many other work programs
were established (Rue & Byars, 2003).
Management’s view of its world was broadened
somewhat to include societal issues external to
the business organization.
This era of
dominance by the organization also spawned the
21st Century
1. High percentage of service industries
2. Emphasis on management processes
3. Foreign markets & cultures
4. Virtual team & network organizational
structures
5. Fluid & reactive operating procedures
6. Ill defined industry boundaries
7. Turbulent market
8. Virtual offices
9. Communication instantaneous & continuous
10. Technology growth exponential
11. Many employees with unique responsibilities
& skills
growth and importance of the trade unions in the
United States. This trend of organizing by labor
provided the appropriate countervailing power
to the economic strength of the corporate world.
This position was strengthen even more during
the depression of the 1930s where the rights of
laborers was abused in many cases due to the
magnitude of need of those out of work/looking
for work during the depression.
From a management perspective the
growing size and complexity of organizations,
and the need to create a skilled labor force, led
to Fayol’s theories of structure and division of
labor (Wren, 1994). While many theorists were
impressed with industrial technology and
mechanization, management discovered that
human assets (largely focused on individuals)
were also important. Management theories and
development began to focus on improving the
productivity of those human assets.
The
acknowledged founder of a body of knowledge
known as scientific management, Frederick
Taylor, stated that training needed to be a part of
the corporation’s responsibility to its employees,
yet he felt the best teacher for managers was
experience (Taylor, 1911).
Taylor also
postulated that the principal objective of
management was to secure the maximum
prosperity for the employer and the employee
(Taylor, 1911).
The 1920’s brought the end of World
War I and the onslaught of more studies of the
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at COLUMBIA UNIV on February 9, 2012
Evolution of the Concept of the Executive
employee and his/her reaction to task and work
environments called the human relations
movement. Chief among these studies were
those conducted at the Hawthorne facility of
Western Electric in Chicago between 1924 and
1933 by a group headed by Elton Mayo (Rue &
Byars, 2003).
The results highlighted the
importance of understanding the social
interaction of workers and the existence of
informal
organizational
social
systems
(Dulebohn, Ferris, & Stodd, 1995). Kaufman
(1993, p. 24) characterized the human relations
focus as “the incorporation of the human factor
into scientific management.” Lewin (1935)
introduced a theory that human behavior is a
function of both person and environment. This
led to the thought that the work environment
needed to give the individual a sense of
belonging for him to function at maximum
capacity and popularized the term group
dynamics.
Era II: 1946-1970
In the three decades following World
War II, large American corporations benefited
from the weakened economies of other nations
such as Germany and Japan. The United States
economy was strong, stable, and experienced
unparalleled prosperity. Producers benefited not
only from the demand from American
consumers, but also from the demand created
when the United States government committed
to rebuild war-torn Europe, as well as the
Philippines and Japan (Tuma, 1971). United
States corporations grew into mega-corporations
that started exploring international holdings to
meet both worldwide demand and to locate
closer to new markets created. Two wars (e.g.,
Korea and Vietnam) and the continuing coldwar arms race continued to fuel the economy
whenever recessions threatened (Library of
Congress, 2004).
The tremendous economic growth and
prosperity of these three decades, while
beneficial to the industrial sector of the
economy, led to a shift away from reliance on
this sector to an emphasis on the development
and delivery of services (Goldstein, 1991). Two
factors explain this shift. First, as Americans
enjoyed high earnings and prosperity, they
began to add services to the ‘goods’ demanded
on a daily basis. Second, technology born in the
Volume 13, Number 2, 2006 33
war efforts and space race began to pervade the
economy. The computer was born during WW
II and greatly perfected during the space race of
the late 1950’s and throughout the 1960’s.
While the computer was a product, its
effectiveness was determined by the software
developed to make it useful as a data processor,
as a reporting system, and in an increasing
number of situations as a data repository (Wren,
1994).
While the industrial world was in full
development mode, the philosophers and
psychologists were in the ‘academic wings’
analyzing the changes from the worker’s
perspective. Team or group dynamics became
the focus of management interest. Deutsch
(1949) suggested that cooperation and
competitive spirit are ever present and
demonstrated that developing cooperative
groups increased production.
Trist and
Bamforth (1951) indicated that it was important
to allow the social dynamics of the group to
exist and that the technical aspects of the job
need not denominate the success of the
workflow. Management continued to place
increasing emphasis on its human assets/capital,
now visualized in group or team dimensions,
rather than as individuals. The advent of the
civil rights movement also highlighted the
disparity among social/ethnic groups as to
opportunities in the workforce. The movement
continues to this day having a direct as well as
an indirect impact on the diversity and vitality of
businesses.
While the computer clearly had a role in
business organizations, it also made significant
contributions to the development of management
theories and practice.
Computers made it
possible to process larger amounts of data and
coupled with a growing body of statistical
techniques, management researchers turned to
empirical studies with greater frequency.
Moreover, as a data repository, computers made
it possible to collect and store large volumes of
data on economic transactions, which
complemented research needs and theory
development (Hammer & Champy, 1993).
Era III: 1971-1991
The years from the early 1970’s through
1991 were a period of economic adjustment for
the United States and much of Western Europe.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at COLUMBIA UNIV on February 9, 2012
34 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies
The oil and gas crisis of the 1970’s played a
major role as the increased cost of energy made
the United States and many European companies
less competitive in the manufacturing arena
worldwide. Companies in the United States
faced an increasingly competitive and rough
economic environment laced with technology
advancements, government interventions, and
many
international
dynamics
(Ferris,
Schelenberg, & Zammuto, 1984). Struggles to
survive became the mantra of many boards-ofdirectors. Casio (1993) reported that in the
1980’s United States based manufacturing firms
cut more than two million workers with a
seventeen percent of the dismissals being from
middle management.
However, the demand for services grew
exponentially, and as technology spread
globally, an increasing number of enterprises
from countries other than the United States
became “best in the world” in various industries.
And, because the United States’ consumer
market was the world’s largest, many of these
foreign enterprises entered the United States
market and experienced phenomenal success.
Domestic consumers, ever egalitarian in their
purchasing choices and experiencing some belttightening of their own, bought foreign goods
and services because they were less expensive
and in many cases of higher quality (e.g.,
automobiles, electronic equipment, watches,
cameras, and the like).
Companies in the United States faced an
increasingly competitive and difficult economic
environment laced with dramatically changing
industry
boundaries,
increasingly
rapid
technology
advancements,
government
interventions, and many international dynamics
(Ferris, Schelenberg, & Zammuto, 1984).
Companies in all sectors faced tough strategic
decisions such as downsizing, restructuring, and
rightsizing (Casio, 1993) as well as adopting
new employment philosophies. During this
time, diversity increased due to the increase in
women and minorities in the main stream of
management. This increased diversity provide
the foundation for improving the skill set and
management capabilities of the organization but
also created a tension and in some cases a
conflict among those in the organization.
Michael Porter (1980; 1985; 1986) argued that
business organizations needed to focus on their
Heames & Harvey
value-chain, which led many to create interorganizational alliances with suppliers and
buyers to increase competitiveness. TQM and
business process re-engineering tools were used
to drive out costs and improve quality, speed,
and responsiveness. Many companies turned
more to global markets in an effort to expand
markets and gain added competencies.
Working dynamics were also changing.
Teamwork and the subsequent social facilitation
were recognized as important features, but
negative behaviors were also being identified.
Social facilitation highlighted the point that the
presence of others could sometimes motivate
individuals and spur them to greater efforts.
However, the opposite pattern was also found in
that sometimes individuals worked less hard in
the presence of others than they did alone. This
effect became known as social loafing. Two
primary reasons were given for social loafing 1)
feeling of anonymity (Harkins & Szymanski,
1988) and 2) perception of easy or not
challenging task (Jackson & Williams, 1985).
The 1980’s presented a change in
philosophy and organizations found that it was
important to foster a sense of mutuality and trust
in the relations between management and
workers, to develop employees as assets with the
view of increasing competitiveness, and to assist
the organizations’ compliance with the increased
government regulations (Kochan, Katz, &
McKersie, 1986; Walton, 1985; Beer & Spector,
1984).
The influence of the Japanese
management style was being felt through out the
American corporate landscape. The successful
application of the Theory Z concept contributed
to the recognition that employees represented a
vital resource just as important as capital and
should be managed to facilitate competitive
advantages (Dulebohn, et al., 1995; Carnevale,
Gainer, & Meltzer, 1990).
Era IV: 1992 – 2002
The economy of the 1990’s could best
be summed-up by a statement made by Larry
Chimerine, former Managing Director and Chief
Economist at the Economic Strategy Institute in
an address to the Fibre Box Association's (FBA)
63rd Annual Membership Meeting on April 27,
2003 in Phoenix, AZ. "The 1990s was the
longest period of uninterrupted growth in United
States history, with no inflation, low
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at COLUMBIA UNIV on February 9, 2012
Evolution of the Concept of the Executive
unemployment, and record corporate profits.
Inflation has been taken-off the counter for a
very long time. We're in a permanent disinflationary economy now."
The need to increase speed and
responsiveness led to increasing use of virtual
teams, new forms of organization, virtual
offices, and more adaptive policies and
procedures. As gaining a competitive edge
became increasingly important throughout the
1990’s management researchers began to rethink
old theories and reframe them in a modern
context (Wren, 1994). Pfeffer (1994) argued
that gaining the skill to effectively manage
people was one of the most competitive tools.
Corporate strategy theorists (Birkinshaw, 2001;
Mintzberg, 1991; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990;
Whitney, 2004) argued that the core
competencies of organizations rest in the human
assets and knowledge base of the organization.
Throughout
this
period,
management
organizations and specifically the human
resource management function within them
changed their philosophy and turned to a more
incorporative mindset (Dulebohn, et al; 1995;
Harvey, Buckley, & Novicevic, 2000).
Pfeffer (1994) argued that gaining the
skill to effectively manage people was one of the
most competitive tools. But, with a diverse
workforce that faced more complex problems
and group dynamics than ever before it was not
an easy task. Diverse workforces brought
opportunity and advantage along with
considerable challenges (Ferris, Frink, Bhawuk,
Zhou, & Gilmore, 1996).
The need for
organizations to more proactively use
cooperative and self managed teams to improve
their competitive position was recognized by
many managers. Those teams were being drawn
from across functions, from various business
units, and even from external market sources.
Rodrigues (2001, p. 82) posited that, “United
States based organizations rely more heavily on
the multi-boss, ad hoc organization than in the
past.” Teams – the size of teams, the kinds of
teams, the dynamics of teams, the member
diversity of teams, and the processes of teams –
became the central focus of training initiatives
for employees and managers. Marks, Matthieu,
and Zaccaro (2001) created the team process
taxonomy to try and assist in the research on
teams.
Volume 13, Number 2, 2006 35
One of the primary methods of growth
utilized by organizations is that of employing an
acquisition strategy. This mode of gaining
market power, diversifying risks, and gaining a
broader consumer base has been an inordinately
popular corporate strategy over the last several
decades. In 2005, it was an estimated $2.9
trillion worth of acquisitions made globally. In
what appears to be an unrelenting quest for
limited resources; the need to capture unique
combinations of human resources (i.e.,
management team tacit knowledge) to gain
competitive advantage; the necessary speed of
getting products to a market to remain
competitive; the growing importance of
relational marketing efforts and the resulting
synergistic marketing channel strategies, an ever
increasing number of firms are focusing on
acquisitions to address these marketplace
challenges more than ever before.
Era V: 2002-Date
The dawn of the 21st Century found the
United States facing more economic uncertainty
and increased government regulation.
The
Sarbanes Oxley act, terrorist attacks, and the
subsequent war on terrorism have left executives
of this new day concerned and very cognizant of
the fact they are facing new tumultuous times.
Kiechel and Sacha (1999) listed the following as
trends that will reshape the workplace
throughout the next decade.
• The average company will become
smaller, employing fewer people.
• The
traditional
hierarchical
organization will give way to a
variety of organizational forms, the
network of specialists foremost
among these.
• Technicians, ranging from computer
repairmen to radiation therapists,
will
replace
manufacturing
operatives as the worker elite.
• The vertical division of labor will be
replaced by a horizontal division.
• The paradigm of doing business will
{continue} to shift from making a
product to providing a service.
• Work itself will be redefined:
constant learning, more high-order
thinking, less nine-to-five.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at COLUMBIA UNIV on February 9, 2012
36 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies
Heames & Harvey
Buckley (2002) would postulate that it is time to
recognize those changes and make some tough
decisions about what still works for the manager
of today and discard the concepts that no longer
apply. With that thought a look at a comparative
model of the two executives that reside at the
polar ends of the time continuum is in order.
It is obvious that the role of the future
CEO will be riddled with surprises, seven major
issues will dominate according to Porter, Lorsch,
and Nohria (2004). These authors listed the
following as possible pitfalls for future
executives: 1) you can’t run the company solo (it
takes a team of talented people); 2) giving orders
is very costly (using power to unilaterally issue
orders or reject proposals by senior staff will
cost in social capital); 3) hard to know what is
really going on (a magnitude of information and
sources of information); 4) always sending a
message (always being scrutinized both inside
and outside the organization); 5) you are not the
boss (still report to board of directors); 6)
pleasing shareholders is not the goal (activities
and strategies supported by shareholders may
not be in best long term interest of the firm); and
7) recognizing that managers/leaders are still
only human (bound by human joys, fears, hopes,
and personal limits). These seven tenets speak
to the dynamic changes of the multi dimensional
environment in which future executives must
operate.
How do the changes discussed above
affect management development? Burns and
Stalker (1994) would argue that the movement
has been from a ‘mechanistic’ management to an
‘organic’ management.
While Harvey and
A Cross Century Comparative
Assessment of the Concept of the
Executive
20th Century Manager/Executive
Chester Barnard developed his concept
of what a manager/executive needed to learn to
remain a viable part of the organization and to
guide those for which he was responsible. He
outlined five key competencies (see Table 2)
that every executive of ‘the future’ (as perceived
in the early part of the 20th Century) needed to
brace themselves with beyond their formal
institutional instruction: 1) broad interests and
wide imagination and understanding, 2) superior
intellectual capacities, 3) an understanding of the
field of human relations, 4) an appreciation of
the importance of persuasion in human affairs,
and 5) an understanding of what constitutes
rational behavior toward the unknown and the
unknowable (Barnard, 1948).
Table 2
A Comparative View of 20th Century Manager with the 21st Century Global Leader
20th Century Manager
(early 1900’s)
1. Broad interests & wide imagination and
understanding
2. Superior intellectual capacities
3. Understanding of the field of human relations
4. Appreciate the importance of persuasion in
human affairs
5. Understand what constitutes rational behavior
toward the unknown & the unknowable
(Barnard, 1948, p. 195-204)
1. Broad interest and wide imagination:
Barnard felt that having a well-rounded liberal
arts education beyond business made
managers/executives more ‘flexible and
adaptable’ in their thinking. While in his role as
1.
21st Century Global Leader
(early 2000’s)
Open minded & flexible
2.
3.
4.
Value-added technical &business skills
Cultural interest & sensitivity
Resilient, resourceful, optimistic, & energetic
5.
Able to deal with complexity
6.
7.
Stable personal life
Possess and engender honesty and integrity
(McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002, p. 35)
company president, he arranged a series of
lectures and readings that were non business
related and lasted up to six non consecutive
weeks for all of the top management, many of
who had college degrees (Barnard, 1948). His
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at COLUMBIA UNIV on February 9, 2012
Evolution of the Concept of the Executive
position was that education could not be
overemphasized.
2. Superior intellectual capacities:
Having survived the Great Depression, World
War I, and World War II, Barnard saw the future
of businesses to be a ‘closer integration of social
activity’ (Barnard, 1948, p. 195). Moreover, he
felt “without education the supply of leaders of
organization competent for conditions of the
modern world would be wholly inadequate”
(Barnard, 1948, p. 194). He drew on that
advance understanding when he spoke to the
concept of intellectual capacities (Barnard, 1948,
p. 197).
There is no doubt in my mind that
training in the more logical disciplines tends to
foreclose the minds of many to the proper
appreciation of human beings. Nevertheless, for
executives, as well as many others, the world of
the future is one of complex technologies and
intricate techniques that cannot be adequately
comprehended for practical working purposes
except by formal and conscious intellectual
processes….to
deal
appropriately
with
combinations of technological, economic,
financial, social, and legal elements; and to
explain them to others so manifestly call for
ability in making accurate distinctions, in
classification, in logical reasoning an
analysis….This means that the student needs
rigorous training in subjects of intellectual
difficulty, thereby to provide himself with the
tools and mental habits for dealing with
important problems.
3. Human Relations: Barnard was clear
on his position of understanding social systems
and recognizing formal organizations as ‘organic
and evolving social systems’. He used the
analogy of organizations not being like
machines, static and fixed; instead they were
compilations of employees who would be
different from location to location. Interaction
and experiences with a given group of people is
needed to fully understand their physical and
psychological needs. This too requires constant
and consistent communication to get to ‘know
your people’.
4. Persuasion: Barnard’s belief s that
one important managerial function was the
process of explaining their actions and beliefs
about company activities. The art of persuasion
is paramount in getting others to accept and even
Volume 13, Number 2, 2006 37
agree with management perceptions.
He
expressed the need to for adequate written and
oral persuasion skills when dealing in human
affairs.
5. Rational behavior: Perhaps the more
difficult of his concepts to understand or that
might be misinterpreted is the last; ‘an
understanding of what constitutes rational
behavior toward the unknown and the
unknowable’.
After having waxed on so
eloquently about the need for superior intellect,
here he adds the intuitive piece. The business
world is full of unknowns and many situations
are faced with incomplete knowledge of all the
facts and thus require the executive to takes
leaps of faith based on past experiences, signals
from the business environment, or just gut
instinct. Barnard prophesized that it is just as
important to be able to exercise wisdom and
instinct as well as intellect (Novicevic, Hench, &
Wren, 2002).
He definitely was a man of vision and
saw dimensions of the future that many of his
time could not comprehend. All five of his
competencies are still needed today, as will be
demonstrated in a subsequent section of this
paper as parallels are drawn between Barnard’s
list and the more modern interpretation of what
competencies are needed by modern global
leaders. All five items drawn from the pages of
his 1948 book are reemphasized today.
21st Century Global Leader/Executive
As stated earlier it was hard to choose
one set of leader characteristics from the list of
noted scholars. However, the McCall and
Hollenbeck (2002) empirically based qualitative
study conducted interviews with over 100 global
executives stationed throughout the world. The
insight of such seasoned leaders was thought to
add to the richness and insights derived from
their research efforts. Their extensive interviews
lead to the following list of competencies: 1)
open-minded and flexible in thought and tactics;
2) cultural interest and sensitivity; 3) able to deal
with complexity; 4) resilient, resourceful,
optimistic, and energetic; 5) honest and
authentic; 6) possess stable personal life; and 7)
value-added technical or business skills (p. 35)
(See Table 2). Each of these points will be
discussed in more details as comparisons and
linkages are drawn between the two lists in the
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at COLUMBIA UNIV on February 9, 2012
38 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies
next section. McCall and Hollenbeck would be
the first to say that no one list can depict a
universal set of competencies as there is no
‘universal global job.’ “Global competencies,
like global jobs, must be thought of as a mix,
depending on the job” (McCall & Hollenbeck,
2002, p. 34). The world is just too complex and
multi-dimensional.
However, their list is
comprehensive, thought provoking, and
empirically created.
One
additional
interesting
and
apparently new facet to the development of the
global executive is the importance of personal
responsibility for their career paths. They seem
to agree with Peter Drucker who advocates
learning ‘personal management’ is as important
as learning to manage other people (Galagan,
1998). McCall and Hollenbeck address the
organizational and personal responsibilities in
the development of the 21st Century leader.
“Although global executive
development
is
more
complicated and uncertain than
its domestic counterpart, it is
not impossible. The problem is
not a lack of know how – in
fact, many processes for
managing the difficulties of
cross-border assignments have
been well known for years. The
problem is the complexity and
risk; few organizations have
adopted a model robust enough
to fit the challenge and then
committed the time and
resources
necessary
to
implement it…
Given the
added challenge of developing
global talent, a substantial
burden for development falls on
the person who aspires to a
global career. Individuals with
such aspirations need to seek
out international exposure, not
wait for it to find them.”
(McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002,
p.13)
Parallels
Table 2 provides an insight into how
these two executive profiles compare when
Heames & Harvey
positioned juxtaposed. A close look at the list
reveals a number of parallels between the way
Barnard described the 20th Century Executive
and how today’s leaders of the 21st Century
depict their roles as articulated by McCall and
Hollenbeck. First, broad interest and wide
imagination seems to be another way to say
open minded and flexible. Barnard realized in
1948 that the market place was getting more
competitive and changes would come more
quickly. He spoke of staying flexible and
adaptable to allow for the changes that were
occurring in the marketplace. The global leader
of today is faced with changes at a faster pace
and has more information to deal with than any
manager in history. Technology puts more
information at their finger tips than the average
person can process. Therefore 21st Century
leaders must also remain alert and responsive to
the hypercompetitiveness and fast changes of
today’s global business arena.
Second, Barnard spoke of superior
intellectual capacities, where the leaders of
today reference value-added technical and
business skills. It would appear that getting an
education and additional training as a foundation
to success is still a must. Both sets of authors
speak extensively about honing intellectual
abilities by continuously pursuing diverse
educational opportunities. While it is clear that
computer and technical skills are more of a
necessity in the 21st Century, that does note
preclude other forms of education. Life long
learning seems to be their motto, which they
allude to being as much an attitudinal issue as it
is as it is a skill.
Third, perhaps the human relations in
Barnard’s day were framed in a more domestic
backdrop and focused on respecting employee
and employer relations. Yet he still realized that
each organization was unique by virtue of the set
of employees that happen to make up the
employee base. He spoke of organic and ever
evolving systems because of the human element.
The same is true today, however the multinational multi-cultural dimensionality of today’s
organization requires global leaders to be
sensitive to respecting people from around the
world from very diverse backgrounds, beliefs,
and morés.
The fourth comparison evolves around
personal attitude, both the manager of the 20th
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at COLUMBIA UNIV on February 9, 2012
Evolution of the Concept of the Executive
Century and the leader of the 21st Century need
to understand the importance of persuasion,
optimism, and resourcefulness in dealing with
others. Good communication skills, both oral
and written, are a necessity as the executive is
always acting as a spoke person for the
organization and must be able to persuade others
to accept and support organizational objectives.
Both sets of authors also stress the need to be
optimistic and caring when dealing with others
in order to have true relationships with
constitutes.
The fifth and last direct parallel between
the authors addresses the need for dealing with
ambiguity. McCall and Hollenbeck speak to the
issue of complexity distorting the facts that
leaders have to deal with on a daily basis.
Barnard talked about how the executive needs to
understand that the facts needed for decision
making is not in ‘black and white,’ clearly
spelled out. He explains there will be times
where intuition is needed to make decisions
because executives have to deal with the
‘unknown and the unknowable.’
It is interesting that two additional
characteristics are explicitly discussed when
describing the leader of the 21st Century and yet
were not given as descriptives for the 20th
Century manager/executive: 1) stable personal
life and 2) honesty and integrity. Perhaps,
Barnard felt these two items were innate or such
essential characteristics that he did not find it
necessary to put them on paper. Whereas the
authors of today may have recognized the
changing demographic trends of blended
families such as ‘dual–earner lifestyles’, and
situations where both marital partners are
sharing the burden and responsibility for family
care. There is an emerging stream of literature
that discusses the stress issues related to workfamily conflict (Eby, Casper, Lockwood,
Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). When addressing
the issues of honesty and integrity, McCall and
Hollenbeck (2002) stated that is necessary for
the leader of today to not only possess these
characteristics, moreover to ‘engender’ them in
others.
Furthermore, they found in their
research that consistent authenticity was crucial
for one to stimulate honesty and integrity in
others. There is evidence that Barnard believed
in and promoted an authentic approach to
leadership and that was an important concept
Volume 13, Number 2, 2006 39
when leaders were faced with ethical decisions
(Novicevic, Davis, Dorn, Buckley, & Brown,
2005). However, he did not list it as one of his
competencies. Again, perhaps he felt it was so
basic it was expected. It still leaves one to
wonder if these personal dimensions (stable
personal life, honesty, and integrity) are just
talked about more today or are they seen as
fading standards that need to be recaptured.
Common Themes
Two common themes run through the
two lists. First, both executive images capture
the value of and the human relational skills
needed to succeed. Each seems to echo the Dale
Carnegie philosophy of understanding your
fellow man and mastering the art of influence
and persuasion (Carnegie, 1936). A second
commonality that ties the two together is the
thought that first-hand experience in the lead
role as CEO is still the most helpful step in the
development of an executive. It appears that
nothing can replace being in the trenches.
People learn to be global from doing global
work (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002). The 21st
Century global leader lives and operates in a
more complex, faster paced, culturally diverse
business arena. Yet he/she should start with the
principles that Barnard’s 20th Century
manager/executive lived by and then add a keen
understanding of the traits and competencies that
ensure success today as expressed by McCall
and Hollenbeck. Moreover, this paper suggests
that it is necessary to use today’s profile as a
basis for growth for tomorrow.
Final Thoughts
The major contribution of this paper is
the parallelism drawn between the changes in
the management environment and the profiles
thought
to
be
necessary
for
the
executives/leaders of the early 20th and 21st
Centuries. The changes that occurred in the
marketplace over the past 70 plus years are
exceptional and represent significant shifts in the
way executives run global hypercompetitive
enterprises. This comparative analysis helps to
draw on the heritage of the past, while moving
forward into the future, with eyes on changes
still occurring at an ever increasing rate in the
market place. The review of the last 70 plus
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at COLUMBIA UNIV on February 9, 2012
40 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies
years leaves the realization that it is necessary to
proactively and methodically develop global
executives and continue to add to their store of
talents and skills.
References
Aupperle, K.E. & Dunphy, S.M. (2001). Managerial
lessons for a new millennium: Contributions
from Chester Barnard and Frank Capra.
Management Decision, 39, 156-164.
Barnard, C.I. (1948). Education for executives.
Organization and Management: Selected
Papers. In K. Thompson (Ed) The early
sociology of management & organizations
(pp. 194-206) New York: Routledge –
Taylor & Francis Group.
Barnard, C.I. (1950). The Functions of the Executive.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Beer, M. & Spector, B.A. (1984). Human Resource
management: The integration of industrial
relations and organization development. In
K.M. Rowland & G.R. Ferris (Eds.).
Research in Personnel and Human
Resources
Management,
2,
261-98.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Birkinshaw, J. (2001). Why is knowledge
management difficult? Business Strategy
Review, 12, 11-18.
Burns, T. & Stalker, G.M. (1994). Mechanistic and
organic systems. The Management of
Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Carnegie, D. (1936). How to Win Friends and
Influence People. New York: Harper &
Brothers.
Carnevale, A., Gainer, L.J., & Meltzer, A.S. (1990).
Workplace basics: The essential skills
employers Want. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Casio, W.F. (1993). Downsizing: What do we know?
What have we learned? Academy of
Management Executive, 7, 95-104.
Casio, W.F. & Zammuto, R.F. (1987). Societal
trends and staffing policies. Denver, CO:
University of Colorado Press.
Davis, R.C. (1951). The fundamentals of top
management. New York: Harper &
Brothers.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and
competition. Human Relations, 2, 129-152.
Heames & Harvey
Dulebohn, J.H., Ferris, G.R., & Stodd, J.T. (1995).
The history and evolution of human
resource management. In G.R. Ferris, S.D.
Rosen, & D.T. Barnum, Handbook of
human resource management, Cambridge
(pp. 18-41), Mass.: Blackwell Publishers.
Eby, L.T., Casper, W.J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux,
C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family
research in IO/OB: Content analysis and
review of the literature (1980-2002).
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124197.
Ferris, G.R., Frink, D.D., Bhawuk, D.P.S., Zhou, J.,
& Gilmore, D.C. (1996). Reactions of
diverse groups to politics in the workplace.
Journal of Management, 22, 23-44.
Ferris, G.R., Schellenberg, D.A., & Zammuto, R.F.
(1984). Human resource management
strategies in declining industries. Human
Resource Management, 23, 381-94.
Galagan, P.A. (1998). Peter Drucker. Training &
Development, 52, 22-28.
Gehani, R.R. (2002). Chester Barnard’s “executive”
and the knowledge-based firm. Management
Decision, 40, 980-991.
Goldstein, I.L. (1991). Training in work
organizations. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M.
Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology, (2nd Ed). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering
the corporation. New York: Harper Collins
Publishers, Inc.
Harkins, D.G. & Szymanski, K. (1988). Social
loafing and self-evaluation with an objective
standard. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 24, 354-365.
Harvey, M.G., & Buckley, M.R. (2002). Assessing
the ‘conventional wisdoms’ of management
for the 21st Century organization.
Organizational Dynamics, 33, 368-378.
Harvey, M.G., Buckley, M.R., & Novicevic, M.M.
(2000). Strategic global human resource
management: A necessity when entering
emerging markets. In: G. Ferris (Ed.),
Research in personnel and human resources
management, (pp. 173-241). New York:
Elsevier Science, Inc.
Jackson, J.M. & Williams, K.D. (1985). Social
loafing on difficult tasks: Working
collectively can improve performance.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, 937-942.
Kaufman, B.E. (1993). The origins and evolution of
the field of industrial relations in the United
Sates. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at COLUMBIA UNIV on February 9, 2012
Evolution of the Concept of the Executive
Kiechel, W., & Sacha, B. (1999). How will we work
in the year 2000? Fortune, 127, 21-44.
Kochan, T., Katz, H., & McKersie, B. (1986). The
Transformation of American Industrial
Relations. New York: Basic Books.
Kotter, J. (2001). What leaders really do. Harvard
Business Review, 79, 85-91.
Lewin, K. (1935). A Dynamic theory of personality.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Library of Congress, (2004). www.loc.gov
Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., & Zaccaro, S.J. (2001).
A temporally based framework and
taxonomy of team processes. Academy of
Management Review, 26, 356-376.
McCall, M.W., & Hollenbeck, G.P. (2002).
Developing global executives: The lessons
of international experience. MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
McKinsey Special Quarterly Report (2004). What
global executives think.
Mintzberg, H. (1991). Learning 1, Planning 0: Reply
to Igor Ansoff. Strategic Management
Journal, 19, 464 - 466.
Novicevic, M.M., Davis, W., Dorn, F., Buckley,
M.R., & Brown, J.Q. (2005). Barnard on
conflicts of responsibility: Implications for
today’s perspectives on transformational and
authentic leadership. Management Decision,
43, 1396-4109.
Novicevic, M.M., Hench, T.J., & Wren, D.A. (2002).
“Playing by ear”… “in an incessant din of
reasons”: Chester Barnard and the history of
intuition
in
management
thought.
Management Decision, 40, 992-1002.
Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through
people. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques
for analyzing industries and competitors.
New York: The Free Press.
Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating
and sustaining superior performance. New
York: The Free Press.
Porter, M. (1986). Competition in global industries.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Porter, M.E., Lorsch, J.W., & Nohria, N. (2004).
Seven surprises for new CEOs. Harvard
Business Review, Oct, 62-72.
Prahalad, C.K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core
competence of the corporation. Harvard
Business Review, May-June 1990, 79-91.
Volume 13, Number 2, 2006 41
Rodriques, C.A. (2001). Fayol’s 14 principles of
management then and now: A framework
for
managing
today’s
organizations
effectively. Management Decision, 39, 880889.
Rue, L.W., & Byars, L.L. (2003). Management:
Skills and application. (10th Ed.), New
York: McGraw-Hill, Irwin.
Simon, H.A. (1945). Administrative behavior: A
study in decision-making processes in
administrative organizations. (4th Ed. 1997). New York: The Free Press.
Swain, J.W. (2002). Machiavelli and modern
management. Management Decision, 40,
281-287.
Taylor, F.W. (1911). The principles of scientific
management. New York: Harper Brothers.
Trist, E.L. & Bamforth, K.W. (1951). Some social
and psychological consequences of the long
wall method of coal-getting. Human
Relations, 4, 3-38.
Tuma, E.H. (1971). European economics history:
Tenth Century to the present. Palo Alto, CA:
Pacific Books.
Vroom, V.H. (2003). Educating managers for
decision
making
and
leadership.
Management Decision, 41, 968-978.
Walton, R.E. (1985). The future of human resource
management: An overview. In R.E. Walton
& P.R. Lawrence (Eds.), HRM trends and
challenges. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Watson, J.S. (1869). Translation: Xenophon, the
anabasis or expedition of Cyrus and the
memorabilia of Socrates. New York: Harper
& Row.
Whitney, K. (2004). Steve Kerr: Managing the
Business of Learning. Chief Learning
Officer, August, 34-37.
Wren, D.A. (1994). The Evolution of management
thought, (4th Ed.) New York: Wiley.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at COLUMBIA UNIV on February 9, 2012